INTER-AGENCY STANDING COMMITTEE
64TH WORKING GROUP MEETING

IASC Country Teams and NGO Representation
DRAFT Discussion Paper

14 - 16 March 2006
Hosted by FAO, Rome

Circulated: 7 March 2006

I Background

The concept of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) in the field has been raised for several years. The original intent of promoting IASC Country Teams in the field was to mirror the cooperation between UN and non-UN entities that takes place at the headquarters level. The Humanitarian Response Review (HRR) has recommended that IASC Field Teams be established. The Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) has written to Humanitarian Coordinators asking them to establish IASC Country Teams (IASC CTs).

II Current Coordination Mechanisms

In every field situation, there are multiple coordination mechanisms involving both UN and non-UN humanitarian actors - some deal with sectoral issues; others cover broader coordination issues. At the same time, there is a UN Country Team that is limited to UN agencies and which does not bring in non-UN agencies.

While IASC CTs are often mentioned, so far there is little clarity on what exactly an IASC CT should do in terms of its role, responsibilities, and functions. Without a clear explanation of the added-value of creating IASC CTs, there is a risk that the name will simply be given to existing coordination mechanisms without contributing to more strategic coordination. While bringing in non-UN humanitarian agencies into coordination mechanisms is generally desirable, there should be clarity on what differences an IASC Country Team would have from existing coordination mechanisms.

The notion of an IASC Country Team requires further clarification and definition. Questions that should be answered in order to provide a consistent framework that could be replicated include the following:

• What role is an IASC CT, as a whole expected to play? What roles are individual agency representatives expected to play?
• What level of decisions should an IASC CT take and are the decisions binding?
• What functions should an IASC CT be expected to carry out?
• Is the IASC CT meant to replace the UN CT on humanitarian issues?

III Composition

Clearly, a crucial issue is the composition of an IASC Country Team. Should the composition mirror the IASC composition at the headquarters level and, therefore, be static? Or should the composition be flexible and agencies be invited to the table on the basis of their field presence, capacity, and/or area of expertise?

Keeping the number of participants manageable is a related challenge. A limited number of actors around the table may create a better opportunity for the IASC CT to become a forum for strategic coordination, instead of being another information-sharing mechanism. How can this limited number of participants be realised while ensuring adequate representation of the various actors in a humanitarian situation?

IV NGO Representation

If IASC CTs are to be set up by HCs, there is a need to ensure that NGO representation in these CTs is consistent with a number of principles. While there may be no "one-size-fits-all" formula that can be applied to each situation, there are several considerations that should be taken into account, including the following:

• An open process by which NGOs in the country are involved in deciding what type of NGO representation should exist: whether IASC participation should be limited to one NGO representation, to two NGO representatives (e.g. one international and one local), or whether another formula should be chosen. The decision as to which NGO(s) will be invited to an IASC CT should not be one taken arbitrarily by a UN CT member, as has been done in some cases to date.
• Clear and consistent criteria for how NGO representatives are chosen. In countries where there is an NGO coordination body, such representation might be made easier, but in other countries some form of election of NGO representatives to the IASC CT could take place to choose NGO representatives for a limited time period (e.g. six months);
• Clear and consistent definition of the roles of NGO representatives. Given the diversity that exists among NGOs, it is next to impossible for any NGO representatives to adequately reflect the views and opinions of the range of NGOs that are found in a country. In addition, there will be a need to ensure that views of local and national NGOs are adequately represented. If protection issues are high on the IASC's agenda, consideration should be given to inviting (a) protection-oriented NGO(s).

V Next Steps

• The IASC WG meeting will provide the first opportunity for discussing the IASC Country Team concept in more detail in the IASC context;
• Following this discussion, the NGO consortia undertake to further consult with NGOs on the IASC CT concept. This consultation will also include field studies reviewing existing field coordination mechanisms. The feedback of this consultation will be brought to the attention of the IASC in the context of the preparatory process of the IASC- NGOs Heads meeting on 13 July 2006 in Geneva.
• The 13 July 2006 meeting will be expected to contribute to further policy guidance on the issue of IASC-NGO relations and coordination.

Proposed Action by the IASC Working Group

1. IASC WG to review the IASC Country Team concept and agree on next steps

Prepared by: ICVA Secretariat - March 2006